| Intro | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Taxon match | | Homonyms | | Statistics | | Webservice | | Manual | | FAQ | | LifeWatch | | Download | | Log in |
IRMNG name detailsTetraphyllum Hosius & von der Marck, 1880 †
11922419 (urn:lsid:irmng.org:taxname:11922419)
uncertain (not used in recent literature; a nom. rej. prop. in botany (only))
Genus
fossil only
Not documented
Taxonomic remark Described as a fossil plant (under botanical Code) but now considered to be a trace fossil, refer Middleton et al., 2021....
Taxonomic remark Described as a fossil plant (under botanical Code) but now considered to be a trace fossil, refer Middleton et al., 2021. Under the botanical Code it competes with the later name Tetraphyllum Griffith ex C.B. Clarke, 1883, which is proposed for conservation by Middleton et al., loc. cit., although it can be used as a valid name in zoology. According to these authors, Bertling, 2019 noted that Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck had neither been placed in synonymy nor further used in the literature since it was published. Index Nominum Genericorum (2022 version) lists Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck as "Not validly published: a provisional name", however Middleton et al. consider that it is validly published. [details]
IRMNG (2022). Tetraphyllum Hosius & von der Marck, 1880 †. Accessed at: https://irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11922419 on 2024-11-15
Date action by
basis of record
Middleton, D. J.; Bertling, M.; McNeill, J.; Möller, M. (2021). (2809) Proposal to conserve the name Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke (Gesneriaceae) against Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck (published as fossil Magnoliophyta). <em>Taxon.</em> 70(2): 437-438., available online at https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12484 [details]
additional source Doweld, A. B. (2017). Tetraphylloides, a new replacement name for Tetraphyllum C.B.Clarke (Gesneriaceae) non Tetraphyllum Hosius & von der Marck (fossil Magnoliophyta). <em>Phytotaxa.</em> 329(3): 293-295., available online at https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.329.3.13 note: states that name is validly published in botany, and that Tetraphyllum W. Griffith ex C.B. Clarke is a later homonym and should be replaced; however see Middleton et al. 2021 for proposed rejection of... states that name is validly published in botany, and that Tetraphyllum W. Griffith ex C.B. Clarke is a later homonym and should be replaced; however see Middleton et al. 2021 for proposed rejection of this name conservation of Tetraphyllum W. Griffith ex C.B. Clarke.
status source Middleton, D. J.; Bertling, M.; McNeill, J.; Möller, M. (2021). (2809) Proposal to conserve the name Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke (Gesneriaceae) against Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck (published as fossil Magnoliophyta). <em>Taxon.</em> 70(2): 437-438., available online at https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12484 note: a nom. rej. prop. in botany, although may be accepted as a zoological taxon [details] verified source for family Middleton, D. J.; Bertling, M.; McNeill, J.; Möller, M. (2021). (2809) Proposal to conserve the name Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke (Gesneriaceae) against Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck (published as fossil Magnoliophyta). <em>Taxon.</em> 70(2): 437-438., available online at https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12484 [details] name verified source Middleton, D. J.; Bertling, M.; McNeill, J.; Möller, M. (2021). (2809) Proposal to conserve the name Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke (Gesneriaceae) against Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck (published as fossil Magnoliophyta). <em>Taxon.</em> 70(2): 437-438., available online at https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12484 [details] extant flag source Middleton, D. J.; Bertling, M.; McNeill, J.; Möller, M. (2021). (2809) Proposal to conserve the name Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke (Gesneriaceae) against Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck (published as fossil Magnoliophyta). <em>Taxon.</em> 70(2): 437-438., available online at https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12484 [details] Unreviewed
Taxonomic remark Described as a fossil plant (under botanical Code) but now considered to be a trace fossil, refer Middleton et al., 2021. Under the botanical Code it competes with the later name Tetraphyllum Griffith ex C.B. Clarke, 1883, which is proposed for conservation by Middleton et al., loc. cit., although it can be used as a valid name in zoology. According to these authors, Bertling, 2019 noted that Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck had neither been placed in synonymy nor further used in the literature since it was published. Index Nominum Genericorum (2022 version) lists Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck as "Not validly published: a provisional name", however Middleton et al. consider that it is validly published. [details]
|
